[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080117073838.GL3351@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:38:38 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
Valerie Henson <val.henson@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental
fsck)
On Jan 15, 2008 22:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> With a filesystem that is compartmentalized and checksums metadata,
> I believe that an online fsck is absolutely worth having.
>
> Instead of the filesystem resorting to mounting the whole volume
> read-only on certain errors, part of the filesystem can be offlined
> while an fsck runs. This could even be done automatically in many
> situations.
In ext4 we store per-group state flags in each group, and the group
descriptor is checksummed (to detect spurious flags), so it should
be relatively straight forward to store an "error" flag in a single
group and have it become read-only.
As a starting point, it would be worthwhile to check instances of
ext4_error() to see how many of them can be targetted at a specific
group. I'd guess most of them could be (corrupt inodes, directory
and indirect blocks, incorrect bitmaps).
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists